should we have to pay to watch England?

Soldato
Joined
24 Dec 2002
Posts
2,634
Location
Barton upon Humber
i know that the whole point of almost everything in this world is in the search of money but should we really have to pay to get England games??

personally i subscribe to setanta anyway for the other stuff but i really feel sorry for a lot of people who cant afford to spend £10 a month on a channel they wont watch. which is why i think having england matches on it is terrible.

Should all england matches be on BBC or atleast a freeview channel of some manner??

IMO yes and i think it disgraseful that there not, having to pay the licence fee is understandable but having to pay more just to watch your countrys team is just wrong!

Also is this set for a while or will all main competition matches be on terrestrial tv?
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2004
Posts
22,527
Location
Devon, UK
I don't pay for Setanta because i've heard their customer service is awful.

I do believe that all England games should be on terrestrial though, split them between BBC1 and ITV1.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Feb 2008
Posts
3,846
This has actually come into my a-levels recently. basically. The BBc has to obey to the government and so does ITV. But ITV also has to obey to adverts. Now i know football is popular. But if the government dont want to much psending on sport and want more spent on religious programs all channels have to follow. ITV is also under pressure to keep its viewers to get adverts. So football may be a popular thing, but its also a huge risk with their budgets.

Some laws need to be introduced.Just like they were against sky. This is why setanta is doing so well now, because Sky were prevented from having so much dominence.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2005
Posts
3,078
Location
London
Perhaps if Sky reduced their monthy fees then we could afford to pay the extra for Setanta.

But I refuse to pay £60+ a month for full Sky + Setanta.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2004
Posts
6,739
Location
The Toilet
Sky's prices are madness nowadays, there hasnt been much improvement to the channel list etc compared to years ago either.

You cant blame setanta for it, they were the highest bidders, I cant imagine they bidded a sky high amount either, its down to others not bidding enough. Just like ITV/BBC origionally not offering fair price for the highlights from Setanta.
I would have thought Setantas ad revenue would increase dramatically if they had england games free to view, without really affecting the overall subscription numbers(due to premiership coverage too).

James you may want to have a look at swapping to virgin if its going to cost £60+.... sure its ALOT cheaper than that with Virgin, you get setanta free if you take out skysports with them.
 
Associate
Joined
23 May 2005
Posts
2,042
National Games should be shown free on Terrestial TV, with games being shared equally between BBC and ITV, but in this day and age there are to many companies trying to profit from such things.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,058
Location
The remittance desk
National Games should be shown free on Terrestial TV, with games being shared equally between BBC and ITV, but in this day and age there are to many companies trying to profit from such things.

Sorry but they shouldn't. With this logic, you've got to put them free on C4 and C5 and who here seriusly wants Five doing England football? They can't even manage the UEFA Cup!

Sky have provided (and still do provide) top notch match coverage, innovative features and useful people. Not John Motson. Or John Barnes. Which is worth paying for alone.

Setanta are trying (very at times) to get into the act, but judging them over 3 games isn't fair tbh. Setanta is free on Virgin Media and £9.99 elsewhere and you get 40+ Premier league games a year, the away internationals, some FA cup as well. Ok, it's not perfect but either we have competition for Sky or we don't - 'giving' the games to the BBC/ITV/C4/Five will not move the qquality of the broadcasts forward tbh.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2002
Posts
11,128
Location
Cumbria
Sorry but they shouldn't. With this logic, you've got to put them free on C4 and C5 and who here seriusly wants Five doing England football? They can't even manage the UEFA Cup!

Sky have provided (and still do provide) top notch match coverage, innovative features and useful people. Not John Motson. Or John Barnes. Which is worth paying for alone.

Setanta are trying (very at times) to get into the act, but judging them over 3 games isn't fair tbh. Setanta is free on Virgin Media and £9.99 elsewhere and you get 40+ Premier league games a year, the away internationals, some FA cup as well. Ok, it's not perfect but either we have competition for Sky or we don't - 'giving' the games to the BBC/ITV/C4/Five will not move the qquality of the broadcasts forward tbh.

who cares about the quality of the broadcast if you can't afford to watch them in the first place?
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Dec 2002
Posts
2,634
Location
Barton upon Humber
not just that but my argument also covers the fact that a lot of people dont pay that much attention to football throughout the season but internationals are a country wide thing.

and what about the supporters of the lower league clubs you dont get jack all from setanta if you dont care about the premiership season.
 
Permabanned
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
25,895
Location
Wigan
Paying sky was ok you got something for your money but not paying £10 a month for some tin pot football games. Will go to the pub if its a huge match.

The FA Cup on the other hand GRRRRRR
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2004
Posts
6,739
Location
The Toilet
not just that but my argument also covers the fact that a lot of people dont pay that much attention to football throughout the season but internationals are a country wide thing.

and what about the supporters of the lower league clubs you dont get jack all from setanta if you dont care about the premiership season.

the people who dont pay much attention but then jump on the internationl bandwagon imo would generally not be THAT bothered about it. Id put money on a fair chunk of them not even knowing theres a game on.

What about the supporters from lower league clubs that get jack all from sky/the bbc/tv/channel 5?
Yes fair enough theres a FEW championship games on sky, but theres nowt else really.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
18,171
Location
Santa Barbara, Californee
To be fair, I doubt many people seriously can't afford £10 a month, it's 32p a day, given what you get I think £10 is a pretty good deal really.

Bear in mind if it was on BBC, it'd have to be funded by the licence fee, so might end up with *everyone*, even those who aren't even interested in football, footing the bill.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2004
Posts
6,739
Location
The Toilet
To be fair, I doubt many people seriously can't afford £10 a month, it's 32p a day, given what you get I think £10 is a pretty good deal really.

Bear in mind if it was on BBC, it'd have to be funded by the licence fee, so might end up with *everyone*, even those who aren't even interested in football, footing the bill.

there was a few complaints about the BBC having footy on during Euros, so many games etc, people whinging that they didnt want to watch it so why was their license fee being spent on it. Funny that I bet the same people wouldnt whinge about the olympics or wimbledon? Id hazard a guess and say the euros had the better viewing statistics too.

Ill agree that Setanta is good value for money too tbh, £10, england away games, premiership games, FA cup. Im not really interested in other sports so dont bother with those, its also got the odd few club channels too, which are sometimes worth whacking on if you're bored.
 
Top